Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: garthus Date: Sep 1, 2009 1:02pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Popular Science Monthly Volume 75

Stephen,

I will check out the faq;s, maybe the links can go there.

Gerry

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Time Traveller Date: Sep 1, 2009 10:32pm
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Popular Science Monthly Volume 75

Does not the copyright belong to the original publisher?

Said copyright does not allow anybody modifying the work,even slightly and putting a new copyright on it.

So would not Google be in breach of the copyright law by modifying the copyrighted book?

If Google modified a book, after it went out of copyright, modifying the text by adding its own logo, legally, only the logo is copyright. (the changes)

So removing the logo, is in effect, keeping yourself safe from Google's copyright.

I would argue that I had a full right to remove that logo, because otherwise I would be in breach of Google's copyright when I distribute the original out-of-copyright text.

The most I could be libel for, was a fraction of the cost to Google to scan the out of copyright text, and a few cents to serve it out to me over the WWW. The text was out of copyright, therefore Google has to treat it as open source, the only charge it can make, is for costs, and not profit. If us people DON'T remove the logo, THEN we are in breach of Google's copyright, but ALL we want, is the original open source which Google modified with a slight proprietary modification, The Logo! If Google tried that with Ubuntu, boy there would be an outcry.

But consider this, Google can only charge for ADDED VALUE, considering that the logo degrades the text, Google should be compensating all the down loaders for degrading the open source text, and NOT trying to charge for added value.

I should have trained as a lawyer, I could tie Google up in court for ever and ever, while it finds answers to such questions. (And I get paid by the hour, not the job)(and thats why lawyers do charge by the hour.)

More importantly, would Google risk legal action, because too much public attention to what its doing, could very well backfire on Google, when the law makers see another Microsoft battle looming, which can make or break want-to-be future politicians now working as lawyers and state and federal attorneys.

How many votes does Google have, in political elections? And Google's actions would make a mockery of current legal actions protecting the latest audio, movies and books, that still are in copyright.

Google is on a sticky wicket already, there is already legal action under way about its attempt to create a monopoly on out of copyright, ownership of old texts.

If you could get the texts off Google Books, but leaving the logo behind, noway will Google have any comeback.

Lateral thinking Peter

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: garthus Date: Sep 2, 2009 4:41am
Forum: texts Subject: Re: Popular Science Monthly Volume 75

Peter,

Great as usual; you shuld post this. Answer:

Google would have no comeback and I would tie them up in court with collateral lawsuits and they know this.

Gerry